By
Natalie Sikavi
May 22, 2008
Thank G-d I live in the United States, where there’s a separation between church and state. I’m a religious person, and I believe that marriage, as a religious institution, should be between a man and a woman. As a matter of legality, however, I see no problem in a marriage between two parties of the same sex. I don’t see why this should offend anyone of any religion. People seeking a same-sex marriage are asking to be validated in the eyes of the state, not by a religion.
Just last week, the California Supreme Court overturned the existing limitation on same-sex marriages in a 4-3 majority ruling. This was done on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. And this court ruling, as all California court rulings, is likely to start a trend in more states around the country.
In reaction to the court’s decision, a movement has emerged to amend California’s state constitution so that it would reject any marriage that is not between a man and a woman. What I don’t understand is why people take this so personally. By no means does this violate the religious institution of marriage: it only grants state recognition of the bond between two people, a status that opposite-sex marriages already have.
What about civil unions and domestic partnerships, you may ask? A civil union may grant state benefits to same-sex couples, such as hospital visitation, inheritance and other rights. But there are many problems with civil unions. They are not portable from state to state, nor do they grant federal benefits such as federal tax benefits or Social Security survivor benefits.
It’s not fair to withhold these benefits from couples because of their sexual orientation. It’s also not fair to give same sex couples a lesser version of marriage. Same sex couples aren’t fighting for a title, they are fighting for equality.
To those who are pushing for a constitutional amendment in California, the fundamental issue at stake is not about marriage but about the separation of church and state. I believe that we are “one nation under G-d,” but belief in G-d does not connote belief in one religion or another, and for that I am thankful.
G-d willing, when I get married, I will have that ceremony conducted by my rabbi and will have a ketuba contract to validate it in the eyes of my religion. Additionally, I’ll have a license from the state so that my husband and I will enjoy the rights the government grants married people.
People seeking same-sex marriages are only asking for the latter, and it’s only fair that those rights should be entitled to them. It’s time for people to stop worrying about technicalities of language and move on to more important global issues.
6 Comments
#1 Sandy
on May 22, 2008 at 4:58 a.m.(North Wales, PA | Unverified Name)
You are 100% right! I wish there were nore people like you around.
#2 joan
on May 22, 2008 at 12:46 p.m.(Portland, OR | Unverified Name)
Since when did God's name become a curse word? Why the G-d? Silly. Plus, I totally disagree with your viewpoint. Marriage, by definition, is a relationship between a man and a woman. I don't see how a non-equal pair should get equal right.
#3 shawn
on May 22, 2008 at 3:53 p.m.(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
I am glad that finally I hear a voice speaking for gay-marriage despite what is sanctified as "true" marriage by their religion. It puzzles me as to why so many people care what others choose to do in their private lives. Honestly, does it make a difference whether your lesbian couple next door have a domestic partnership or are full-on married?
and Joan,
I'd like to hear you say the same thing when your child ends up playing for the opposite team.
- Your local raging queer
#4 dt
on May 22, 2008 at 6:53 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
Joan, did you read properly? Sikavi said that we should move past technicalities of language. And you are, giving us the "definition" of language. The title doesn't matter, but rights do.
#5 dt
on May 22, 2008 at 6:54 p.m.(Bellevue, WA | Unverified Name)
Whoops, I mean "definition" of marriage.
#6 Ryan
on May 22, 2008 at 6:57 p.m.(Renton, WA | Unverified Name)
I would just like to point out something in regards to Joan's comment about this article treating God's name as a curse word.
Observant Jews, as this author clearly is, do not casually use the name of God in writings as it is a concern that someone might take those writings and deface or destroy them, even accidentally. It is not treating God's name as a curse word, it's protecting it as a Holy word.
Thank you, Natalie, for writing this article. And thank you to anyone who responds to it. People are always going to disagree on certain fundamentals. The question here isn't a question of Judeo-Christian theology, it's a question of the laws and political system of this country.
I appreciate that many Christians are strongly opinionated on the definition of marriage. As a gay man who was brought up Presbyterian, I have seen both sides and I can appreciate them for standing up for what they believe in. This decision will be decided by the people and courts of this country and the states. I, for one, hope that they will find that two people who love each other ARE equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of gender. I hold no expectation, nor do I desire, for churches to be held to that belief. Separation of church and state was designed to protect both the church and the state, not one over the other.
Post a comment